MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317699028 · doi:10.1097/mca.0b013e32834236e1

Coronary pressure measurement identifies patients with diffuse coronary artery disease who benefit from coronary revascularization

2010· article· en· W2317699028 on OpenAlex
Takeshi Matsumoto

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoronary Artery Disease · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseRevascularizationPressure dropFractional flow reserveArteryMyocardial infarctionCoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the pressure drop pattern in patients with diffuse coronary artery disease and treated these patients according to their pressure drop pattern. METHODS: We measured pullback coronary pressure from the distal to the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery in 83 patients with diffuse coronary artery disease. Coronary pressure pattern was divided into two types: the abrupt and gradual pressure drop patterns. Patients with an abrupt pressure drop pattern and fractional flow reserve less than 0.75 underwent coronary revascularization. Patients with gradual pressure drop pattern received medical therapy except five patients, who underwent coronary bypass surgery because of triple vessel disease. We followed these patients for 8-20 (14.3±4.6) months using the grading system of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS grade). RESULTS: Abrupt pressure drop pattern was observed in 47 patients, whereas the remaining 36 patients showed gradual pressure drop pattern. Angiographic findings did not distinguish these pressure drop patterns. All patients with the abrupt pressure drop pattern except one showed symptomatic improvement (the CCS grade decreased from 2.64±0.76 to 1.09±0.35, P<0.01) in response to coronary revascularization. In patients with the gradual pressure drop pattern, 17 of 36 patients showed improvement of symptoms (the CCS grade decreased from 2.31±0.53 to 1.75±0.77, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Coronary pressure measurement distinguished patients with abrupt pressure drop pattern from those with gradual pressure drop pattern, and the former group of patients benefited from coronary revascularization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it